RealGM

Comparing Jokic vs. Wilt at their best:

Who would you take at their best? (All stats include playoffs):

Player A:
113 Games
27.9/11.7/6.5
FT%: .839+
FG%: .538
3P%: .376 (4.5 3PA/G)
True Shooting %: .639 (rTS% +7.2)
MP/G: 34.5

Player B:
191 Games
23.5/25.5/8.0
FT%: .397
FG%: .598
3P%: N/A
True Shooting %: .584 (rTS%: +8.9%)
MP/G: 47.2

Note: Wilt played in a league with 121 possessions per game. Jokic has peaked in a league with 104 possessions per game. A lot more rebound and assist opportunities for Wilt, but much more lenient defensive rules (overall) for Jokic.

Note: Jokic missed (at least) 15 games since the beginning of last season due to COVID, and has 46 games left to play in regular season. Prorated, assuming great health, that’s 174 games played for Jokic (and that's not including the playoffs this year...(which, albeit, at this point... seems unlikely given the Nuggets team performance).

Note: Wilt did not miss ONE game those years, while averaging a paranormal 47.2 minutes per game!

So...who is the better center? Who's more valuable? Who would you take to start or lead your team?

We have to wait for the playoffs, but right now it's Wilt comfortably to me.

70sFan wrote:We have to wait for the playoffs, but right now it's Wilt comfortably to me.

Hopefully Jokic stays healthy!

Have you ever seen a 113 game span this well rounded and dominant by a center in your time as an ardent NBA fan?

Wilt's a top 5 guy, Jokic is a top 15 guy at the rate he's going at.

Even with big defensive improvements, I think Wilt is just too dominant on that end. There are maybe 5 guys (clearly) better than Chamberlain on defense.

ty 4191 wrote:

70sFan wrote:We have to wait for the playoffs, but right now it's Wilt comfortably to me.

Hopefully Jokic stays healthy!

Have you ever seen a 113 game span this well rounded and dominant by a center in your time as an ardent NBA fan?

I also hope he will be healthy, there is nothing worse than injury of the best player in the league.

I haven't seen a better center live personally. I think that Duncan in 2002-03 and Shaq in 2000-01 were better, but no center since them.

1968 Wilt is definitely not him at his best. Statistically there's a noticeable decline from 67, if you're going to pick a year next to 67 it should be 66 in which case i think Wilt is easily better.

No-more-rings wrote:1968 Wilt is definitely not him at his best. Statistically there's a noticeable decline from 67, if you're going to pick a year next to 67 it should be 66 in which case i think Wilt is easily better.

Wilt had one of his finest defensive seasons in 1968 though. This shouldn't be discounted, as we all know that Wilt was a defensive monster with massive impact on that end.

On top of that, he had a rough start in RS, but he finished the season extremely strong:

First 30 games: 19.0 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 7.0 apg on 52.4 FG%, 34.7 FT% and 49.0 TS% in 45.8 mpg
Last 52 games: 27.4 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 9.5 apg on 62.8 FG%, 39.7 FT% and 59.0 TS% in 47.5 mpg

After a weak beginning of the season, Wilt's boxscore production was basically on the same level as in 1967, expect that he was worse at the FT line.

I think that people underestimate Wilt's 1968 postseason run. He was injured throughout the playoffs and had these two infamous deciding games against the Celtics, but before them he averaged:

24.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 6.5 apg on 56.4 FG%, 37.7 FT% and 53.5 TS% in 48.6 mpg in the first 11 games

In the first 5 games vs Celtics, he didn't have a single bad game. His body just couldn't handle the ridiculous minutes with injury. I'd say that Wilt had better RS and postseason in 1968 vs 1966.

70sFan wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:1968 Wilt is definitely not him at his best. Statistically there's a noticeable decline from 67, if you're going to pick a year next to 67 it should be 66 in which case i think Wilt is easily better.

Wilt had one of his finest defensive seasons in 1968 though. This shouldn't be discounted, as we all know that Wilt was a defensive monster with massive impact on that end.

On top of that, he had a rough start in RS, but he finished the season extremely strong:

First 30 games: 19.0 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 7.0 apg on 52.4 FG%, 34.7 FT% and 49.0 TS% in 45.8 mpg
Last 52 games: 27.4 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 9.5 apg on 62.8 FG%, 39.7 FT% and 59.0 TS% in 47.5 mpg

After a weak beginning of the season, Wilt's boxscore production was basically on the same level as in 1967, expect that he was worse at the FT line.

I think that people underestimate Wilt's 1968 postseason run. He was injured throughout the playoffs and had these two infamous deciding games against the Celtics, but before them he averaged:

24.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 6.5 apg on 56.4 FG%, 37.7 FT% and 53.5 TS% in 48.6 mpg in the first 11 games

In the first 5 games vs Celtics, he didn't have a single bad game. His body just couldn't handle the ridiculous minutes with injury. I'd say that Wilt had better RS and postseason in 1968 vs 1966.

Despite being injured, as you aptly noted, here are Wilt's numbers versus Willis Reed and Bill Russell:

Wilt vs. Reed: 25.5/24.2/6.3 (49.4 MPG) on .584 shooting (.537 TS%)
Reed vs. Wilt: 21.3/10.3/1.8 (35.0 MPG) on .541 shooting (.576 TS%)

Wilt vs. Russell: 22.1/25.1/6.7 (47.9 MPG) on .487 shooting (.487 TS%)
Russell vs. Wilt: 13.9/23.9/4.1 (46.0 MPG) on .440 shooting (.479 TS%)

That's pretty much a beatdown, especially considering Wilt's insane minutes played coupled with efficiency...against two all time great centers....and, arguably, the GOAT defensive center in NBA history.

ty 4191 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:1968 Wilt is definitely not him at his best. Statistically there's a noticeable decline from 67, if you're going to pick a year next to 67 it should be 66 in which case i think Wilt is easily better.

Wilt had one of his finest defensive seasons in 1968 though. This shouldn't be discounted, as we all know that Wilt was a defensive monster with massive impact on that end.

On top of that, he had a rough start in RS, but he finished the season extremely strong:

First 30 games: 19.0 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 7.0 apg on 52.4 FG%, 34.7 FT% and 49.0 TS% in 45.8 mpg
Last 52 games: 27.4 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 9.5 apg on 62.8 FG%, 39.7 FT% and 59.0 TS% in 47.5 mpg

After a weak beginning of the season, Wilt's boxscore production was basically on the same level as in 1967, expect that he was worse at the FT line.

I think that people underestimate Wilt's 1968 postseason run. He was injured throughout the playoffs and had these two infamous deciding games against the Celtics, but before them he averaged:

24.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 6.5 apg on 56.4 FG%, 37.7 FT% and 53.5 TS% in 48.6 mpg in the first 11 games

In the first 5 games vs Celtics, he didn't have a single bad game. His body just couldn't handle the ridiculous minutes with injury. I'd say that Wilt had better RS and postseason in 1968 vs 1966.

Despite being injured, as you aptly noted, here are Wilt's numbers versus Willis Reed and Bill Russell:

Wilt vs. Reed: 25.5/24.2/6.3 (49.4 MPG) on .584 shooting (.537 TS%)
Reed vs. Wilt: 21.3/10.3/1.8 (35.0 MPG) on .541 shooting (.576 TS%)

Wilt vs. Russell: 22.1/25.1/6.7 (47.9 MPG) on .487 shooting (.487 TS%)
Russell vs. Wilt: 13.9/23.9/4.1 (46.0 MPG) on .440 shooting (.479 TS%)

That's pretty much a beatdown, especially considering Wilt's insane minutes played coupled with efficiency...against two all time great centers....and, arguably, the GOAT defensive center in NBA history.

Wilt didn't guard Reed either, he guarded Bellamy. Check out his numbers, he got completely shut down.

Wilt did have one of his best-ever playoff series against New York in 1968

Here are his full stat lines from that series

game 1 1 37 PTS 29 REBS 7 ASTS 10 BLKS

game 2 24 PTS 17 REBS 8 ASTS 12 BLKS

game 3 18 PTS 24 REBS 8 ASTS 11 BLKS

game 4 23 PTS 27 REBS 5 ASTS 6 BLKS

game 5 26 PTS 21 REBS 7 ASTS 14 BLKS

game 6 25 PTS 27 REBS 3 ASTS 10 BLKS


For the series, he averaged 25.5 PTS 24.1 REBS 6.3 ASTS 10.5 BLKS,


It's a shame that he got injured during the postseason that year.


As I would say that Wilt easily had a better RS and postseason in 1968 vs 1966.

Wilt was an unreal defender and belongs in the same tier with Hakeem/Robinson/Mutombo etc. right below Russell who is in a tier of his own. That gives him an edge over Jokic for me. If Nikola can improve defensively and become an all time great at that end though, sky is the limit for him. But now it's Wilt.

No comparison, Wilt with tiers above.

HeartBreakKid wrote:There are maybe 5 guys (clearly) better than Chamberlain on defense.

There isn't anyone CLEARLY better than Wilt defensively, IMO. At least when evaluating peaks and not careers. Certainly you can make arguments for several players but Wilt is in the conversation for best defensive peak.

---

Jokic is playing in an era where it is easier than ever to score and get assists. So his stats are inflated because of this.

Wilt's stats are inflated because of pace, league FG% (for rebounds) and lack of a 3-pt line (for rebounds and blocks, which weren't counted officially anyways but people still unofficially rate his shotblocking ability). It was also harder to get assists in his era.

So you can't directly compare their counting stats. So trying to directly compare their counting stats is basically worthless. You need to rank them relative to their peers in their era.

kendogg wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:There are maybe 5 guys (clearly) better than Chamberlain on defense.

There isn't anyone CLEARLY better than Wilt defensively, IMO. At least when evaluating peaks and not careers. Certainly you can make arguments for several players but Wilt is in the conversation for best defensive peak.

---

Jokic is playing in an era where it is easier than ever to score and get assists. So his stats are inflated because of this.

Wilt's stats are inflated because of pace, league FG% (for rebounds) and lack of a 3-pt line (for rebounds and blocks, which weren't counted officially anyways but people still unofficially rate his shotblocking ability). It was also harder to get assists in his era.

So you can't directly compare their counting stats. So trying to directly compare their counting stats is basically worthless. You need to rank them relative to their peers in their era.

First off, I think you're completely right. But how do you rank them relative to their peers in their respective eras? Which metrics do you use?

As far as assists, you're entirely correct. For one, because the player had to be in the act of shooting once receiving the ball, assists were at least 25% harder to get in Wilt's era. Just look at the assist leaders from 1960-1973 vs. say, 2008-2021.

How are Jokic's scoring stats inflated? Compared to when, and why?

On a per game basis, since it's only 33 games in, where does Jokic's current season rank in box score and on/off metrics, all time?

Overall value.

How about since the beginning of last season, including the playoffs last year?

ty 4191 wrote:But how do you rank them relative to their peers in their respective eras? Which metrics do you use?

How are Jokic's scoring stats inflated? Compared to when, and why?

There isn't any great metrics. If you are comparing players of the same position and roughly the same usage/role, using relative TS% and points per 75 would probably be the best comparison for their scoring output. But rTS doesn't account for shot difficulty, so guys like Bird or Kobe don't have a great rTS despite obviously being great offensive players for many reasons. And it doesn't account for teammate quality either. There's no great metric to compare passing ability, because that's team/role dependent. And there's not even a good metric for measuring defense across eras. DBPM is based on box scores which only tell a small part of the story on defense, and on/off is extremely team dependent and not comparable across teams much less eras.

As for Jokic's stat inflation, its not just him it's the entire league. The rules today allow offenses to score easier than ever before, due to a combination of several things, such as hand check, gather step, overall more lax dribble/carry rules, more favorable rules regarding charge/block, and of course the big one, the spacing in today's era. The development of kids over several generations now since the integration of the 3-pt line, who are now taught that off the dribble 3's or even deep 3's are a good shot sometimes (which was never the case in earlier eras) means the entire meta game has dramatically shifted on both sides of the court. There's often times where teams literally have 5 guys around the 3-pt line and nobody in the paint, giving anyone free access. And in Jokic's favor, the fact that most teams play forwards mostly at center now means he can utilize his size advantage to get easier shots in the paint. Teams playing 5 switchable players is better to defend the 3-pt line, but not to defend the few teams that have a significant post player like Jokic or Embiid. As a result, eFG% is higher in this era than ever before. And yes, the average talent level of the league has risen over the years as well as the game has evolved, and defenses are more complex than ever before. But yet the eFG of the league has jumped several percentage points due to rules. League eFG was always around 47-50% for 3 decades since the 3-pt line introduction. Last year it ballooned to 54%, and that was despite a massive number of star injuries as well as tons of players in COVID protocols. The foul baiting changes has dropped it this year thus far to 52%, though again that's with an unprecedented number of players out due to COVID protocols. Almost every team in the league is literally signing guys to 10-day contracts just to have enough players to fill out a rotation. Also with the pace back up to levels not seen in 2 decades, there's more possessions to add to the inflation of the box stats.

Basketball has a constantly shifting meta game, so there's no real way to compare box stats. IMO the best way to compare players is to look at how they performed against their peers, and from there you can further dig in to judge their skillset, ranking their individual skills among their peers. Wilt is one of the harder players to judge because his game and role vastly changed over his career. He was an unbelievably good scorer (his rTS backs that up) yet the prevailing opinion of the time was that centers should play more like Bill Russell and focus on defense and playmaking. Over time Wilt did indeed play more like Bill Russell, which dramatically changed his production later in his career. But he would still occasionally pop off for 40 or 50 just to quiet the critics saying he couldn't score anymore. And analysts can't even agree on what season of Wilt's was his statistical best, because his role was so dramatically different.

My personal opinion is that when Wilt was playing like Russell, he was an even better defender than Russell ever was, though Wilt never matched Russ in leadership and intangibles, which certainly has to factor in somehow. And you can certainly make the case that Russell was more effective in leading a team to be the best defense in the NBA, because the Celtics weren't just #1 defense every year they were BY FAR the #1 defense every year. Though the Celtics also had superior depth and the best coach in the league. When it comes to offense, Wilt was clearly the most dominant scorer of his time (Oscar, Jerry and Elgin I think for most people don't really have much of a case over Wilt). Jokic is arguably the best offensive player today, though he has several peers that have just as strong of a case (Durant, Curry, Giannis, maybe Embiid, even LeBron when he isn't LeCoasting). Jokic is also not nearly the defender Wilt was. Jokic is a great rebounder, but he's also matched up with forwards half the time so he SHOULD be dominating the boards. I think Jokic has improved defensively to where he's not a liability, but the true centers that do get significant playing time in this league today are all very good defenders and I don't think Jokic is better defensively than any of them really. The replacement level player at center has essentially skyrocketed due to teams just playing forwards at center if they don't have a good center. Jokic's DBPM stats are good almost entirely because of his rebounding, and most aspects of defense don't show up in the box score anyway. Jokic does have good hands for a big guy though and can strip at a better rate than most centers.

So yeah Wilt is the better 2-way player, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Jokic is still in the discussion for best offensive player in the league, and offense will always be more important than defense, because defense is more about effort and communication than superstar skills. So relative to their peers they are both top notch.

This Jokic manlove is really getting out of hand.

First off, Chamberlain played 47 min/g in 1967-68 (49 min/g in the playoffs). Jokic this 2021-22 season is playing all of 34 min/g. Let that sink in - Chamberlain was on the floor 1/4 to 1/3 more minutes over the entire season than Jokic will be this season. Hard to help your team - or claim to be a great player - when you are sitting on the bench.

Second off, that 1967-68 season Chamberlain lead the league in rebounds, assists, 2pt FG%, and likely blocked shots, played great defense, yet rarely committed a foul.

As for their careers Chamberlain is considered by many to have been as good a defender as Russell, and many others 2nd best to Russell.

I dont' remember anyone ever talking about Jokic being even a really good defender until this current season, and this is already his 7th season in the league. Plus he's always been a worse than average to poor shot blocker for a C.

Wilt was scoring at the same rate he was rebounding that year. Sounds great until you realize he wasn’t a Rodman level rebounder.

Elgee showed with hard historical data that it is really hard to have top level offensive impact without being a decently good scorer.

Like John Stockton struggled to a top 5 offensive guy over even guys like Miller or Payton in his prime, to say nothing of Jordan, Shaq, Barkley, etc.

And Wilt was not a better offensive player than Stockton in 68. Maybe never better in his career.

In any case, Wilt having just 1.8 fouls per game on 48 minutes and 125 possessions per game is insane in itself. Like insanely insane. So insane I’m sure he was getting away with mayhem in the paint. Which in itself lends him to be a crazy dominant defender despite flaws, that to me would show up more today.

Yes, I am in a vacuum, refusing to accept a guy can play all minutes of a 125 possession game and basically never foul. While also constantly boxing out and protecting the rim. Would never happen today. But since it did happen, I don’t doubt he was overpowered on defense.

That year seemed to be more like current Gobert with a passing buff, and possibly worse raw finishing. And if you think that’s somehow unfair, Gobert is also scoring as much as rebounding, and rebounding at the highest level in the league. And leading in raw FG% which wilt didn’t.

Gobert with legitimately good playmaking is still not close to Jokic. But probably better than most anybody else.

Still Jokic is in a GOAT ish peak kind of situation right now. 68 Wilt, is definitely not that material to me.

kcktiny wrote:This Jokic manlove is really getting out of hand.

First off, Chamberlain played 47 min/g in 1967-68 (49 min/g in the playoffs). Jokic this 2021-22 season is playing all of 34 min/g. Let that sink in - Chamberlain was on the floor 1/4 to 1/3 more minutes over the entire season than Jokic will be this season. Hard to help your team - or claim to be a great player - when you are sitting on the bench.

Second off, that 1967-68 season Chamberlain lead the league in rebounds, assists, 2pt FG%, and likely blocked shots, played great defense, yet rarely committed a foul.

As for their careers Chamberlain is considered by many to have been as good a defender as Russell, and many others 2nd best to Russell.

I dont' remember anyone ever talking about Jokic being even a really good defender until this current season, and this is already his 7th season in the league. Plus he's always been a worse than average to poor shot blocker for a C.

How are we supposed to interpret differences in minutes given that the MPG for top players generally was so radically different between eras?